Money, Money, Money Part II

In my last blog, I whined about the destructive and outsized impact that money has on how we are now governed. Like all whiners, I make up more problems to whine about than I have solutions for. But with this particular whine, I may actually be onto something – some ways to at least reduce the size of the problem. My ideas admittedly will not be easy to implement. Hell, they’ll be damn near impossible.  But the problem is large enough and my good sense is small enough to allow me to actually propose them here. 

1. The Judicial Way

If you think that today’s Supreme Court comes up with some whoppers, let me bring you back to 1976. That was the year that the Court got their mitts on a case called, “Buckley v. Valeo.” That one was about whether handing out piles of money to politicians was Constitutionally protected in the same way that, say, speaking at a town meeting is. In other words, was money the same as speech? The seven Aces of Acumen decided that it was. They made it unconstitutional to restrict most political contributions. 

Fueled by that fantasy, The Brethren then smelled victory when a case came to them called, “Citizens United.” Everybody remembers that one. After what must have been at least three minutes of deep thought, the Supremes landed on this logical syllogism: IF the Constitution lets people freely donate money; and IF corporations are people; THEN  corporations can also freely donate money. So they said corporations were people, too. 

Ironically, the right-wing complains that we have too many more people in this country because of immigration. In fact, we have too many more people in this country because they have granted peoplehood to corporations and fetuses.

Anyway, before any meaningful contribution limitations on political contributions can be passed, the Buckley and Citizens United cases have to be reversed. Lately, this Supreme Court loves to reverse things – both cases and history. So, maybe this could be the time. Maybe this activist Court will turn its back on Buckley and Citizens United the way it did on Roe. Would they? Could they? Not a fucking chance. These Justices didn’t get those Superman capes just by flying in through the window. They know the score. A voice constantly drums this mantra into their heads: “The monied people and the power people are the ones who put us here. If we shut down their power . . .” Hell, you know the rest. 

So, while remotely feasible, let’s say that the Supreme Court option is as likely to happen as is Eric Trump winning the Nobel Prize in Physics. 

• The Disclosure Way.

Let’s try another way. Disclosure. And when I say, “Disclosure,” I really mean it. Not the menial disclosure laws we have now. Real disclosure.

What if the Federal Election Commission (FEC) required all candidates to file a list of every contributor, big or small, including the contributor’s name – and I mean the real name not some phony fictional holding company. It would have to be the name in which the contribution was made and the holder of bank account from which the original money was drawn.

And most of all, the form will list every other contribution that this contributor has made to everyone else. 

Now that’s disclosure! But wait! There’s more!

The form would be a public document. It is now. But only in a limited way. Under my scenario, people wouldn’t have to make FOIA requests or manipulate a computer terminal to get the information. No, I would make the Federal Election Commission send an actual, physical monthly report to every voter displaying all of the information submitted up until then. And it will also be splashed everywhere. All FCC licensed broadcast outlets will have to establish a station that will broadcast all of the contribution information. The unrich and unfamous should know exactly who the rich and famous want to be in power, and how much of their riches they think they need to shower on those guys. For example, if you care a lot about high health care costs, this way you can see who is backing the pols who are keeping them that way. Maybe not everyone will take the opportunity to look. But I can’t help but think that there will be many who will.

Again, this won’t stop political contributions, but it may put a little pin in some of them.

• Take Away the Market

Wouldn’t it be hot shit if capitalism became the engine for the reduction of one of the most capitalist concepts of all time – political contributions? Not out of the question.  

The best way to reduce money in politics is to make it less necessary. Reduce the market. Capitalism is all about markets. The market for political contributions consists mostly of media. The candidate and the media have a mutual love affair. Candidates love the media because they need all those mics and cameras to allow them to spend hours and hours sticking their made-up mugs at us and lip-syncing their stump-speech-talking -points. And the media loves politicians because those hours and hours make them rich. Out of their patriotic hearts, they charge a bunch for every second.

That makes the solution simple: minimize the need to pay for media in the first place. 

We can use our friends at the FCC. They could force all licensed broadcast outlets to provide time for all candidates and most importantly, for free.  And on top of that, Congress would also authorize a series of special cable channels that would broadcast political advertising for free. 

I might even go a little further and resurrect the old “fairness doctrine”. That FCC rule required all candidates get equal time. Sure, that would open the door to some pretty maniacal candidates, some even crazier than Republicans. But would that be so bad? It would help make all the political campaign talk more entertaining and draw more eyeballs.

So those are my ideas. For the most part they are very impractical. Because politics in the art of the practical, then my political ideas essentially suck. And yet, none of them are impossible. Implementation of any of them would be up to us – the people (at least if we can remain a Trump-Free Zone). 

Sure, I may be tilting at windmills. Then again, the Orange Defendant tells us that windmills cause cancer. In that assertion he is, as he always is, blatantly wrong. So, based on the fact that the Orange Defendant gets everything backwards, then my windmills won’t cause cancer, they will kill the cancer of money that infects our body politic. 

I will be sending the Disclosure and Market suggestions to various lawmakers. If I am not institutionalized as a result, I will consider that progress.